PATANJALI YOGPEETH (NYAS),DELHI vs. ADIT(EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L. P. Sahu

sections 11/12 of the Act, as the aforesaid activity of providing cottage facility and/ or issuance of donation coupons/ receipts was clearly in pursuance/furtherance of the charitable objectives of the assessee trust and was not a business/commercial activity with the motive of earning profits. In the above context, your Honour’s kind attention is invited to the various legal precedents

SUNSHINE EDUCATIONAL & DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. ADDL. CIT, EXEMPTION, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 11 to assessee society has held that, since imparting of education is a matter of pure charity, therefore, the educational institution is not permitted to receive or recover the cost of charity from its beneficiary by way of fees, i.e., charging of fees itself would amount uncharitable activity. We are unable to subscribe to this proposition at all, because

CONFRERE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 11 to assessee society has held that, since imparting of education is a matter of pure charity, therefore, the educational institution is not permitted to receive or recover the cost of charity from its beneficiary by way of fees, i.e., charging of fees itself would amount uncharitable activity. We are unable to subscribe to this proposition at all, because

RAMA DEVI MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. JCIT, RANGE-2, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 11 to assessee society has held that, since imparting of education is a matter of pure charity, therefore, the educational institution is not permitted to receive or recover the cost of charity from its beneficiary by way of fees, i.e., charging of fees itself would amount uncharitable activity. We are unable to subscribe to this proposition at all, because

NATIONAL CHILDRENS FUND 5 SIRI INSTITUTIONAL AREA, HAUZ KHAS NEW DELHI,NEW DELHI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD EXEMPTION 2(4) DELHI, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.”

section 11(2). The AO placed reliance on decisions of Singhania Charitable Trust [1993] 199 ITR 819 (Cal) and CIT vs M.Ct. Muthiah Chettiar Family Trust [2000]245

NATIONAL CHILDRENS FUND S5, SIRI INSTITUTIONAL AREA, HAUZ KHAS NEW DELHI,NEW DELHI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD EXMP 2(4) DELHI, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.”

section 11(2). The AO placed reliance on decisions of Singhania Charitable Trust [1993] 199 ITR 819 (Cal) and CIT vs M.Ct. Muthiah Chettiar Family Trust [2000]245

DCIT(E), NEW DELHI vs. GOODEARTH FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the grounds of appeal Nos

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit(E), Vs. Goodearth Foundation, Circle-1(1), Eicher House, Civic Centre, 12, Commercial Complex, New Delhi. Greater Kailash-Ii, New Delhi. Pan: Aaatg5663R

Trust in the year in which the income was spent in acquiring those assets. This did not mean that in computing income from those assets in subsequent years, depreciation in respect of those assets cannot be taken into account. This view of the Tribunal has been confirmed by the Bombay High Court in the above judgment. Hence, Question

SHUGAN CHADRA KOTHARI TRUST,NEW DELHI vs. CIT(E), NEW DELHI

In the result Appeal of assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri R.K. Panda

charitable in nature and within the meaning of Section 2(15) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. The A.O. noted in the assessment order that income from various sources, expenditure and surplus which was to the extent of 15%. The net taxable income was assessed at NIL vide Order Dated 10th October, 2016 under section 143(3) of the Income

KUNTI NAMAN PHARMA & TECHNOLOGY SCIENCE SOCIETY,HARIDWAR vs. CIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

charitable activities and was not eligible for registration u/s 12AA of the Act. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Queens' Educational Society Vs CIT 245 CTR 449 has held that mere earning of profit cannot be the reason for not allowing registration under the provisions of Section 12AA. The findings of Hon'ble Supreme Court

M/S. SHREE BALAJI EDUCATIONAL TRUST,HARIDWAR vs. CIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in the manner as indicated above

Bench: Sh. G.D. Agrawal V.P. & Sh. C.M. Garg, J.M Shree Balaji Educational Trust Vs Cit C/O Anil Ashok & Associates, Ca Dehradun 1St Floor Verma Sweets, Arya Nagar, Jwalapur Haridwar Appellant Respondent

charitable activities and was not eligible for registration u/s 12AA of the Act. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Queens' Educational Society Vs CIT 245 CTR 449 has held that mere earning of profit cannot be the reason for not allowing registration under the provisions of Section 12AA. The findings of Hon'ble Supreme Court

INDIAN NATIONAL CONG. (I) AICC vs. C.I.T.- XI

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

charitable or religious purposes or by an institution established wholly or partly for such purposes or by an association or institution referred to in clause (21) or clause (23), or by a fund or trust or institution referred to in sub clause (iv) or sub- clause (v) of clause (23C) of section 10. ITA Nos. 145/2001 & 180/2001 Page

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-XI vs. INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS/ALL INDIA CONGRESS COMMITTEE

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

charitable or religious purposes or by an institution established wholly or partly for such purposes or by an association or institution referred to in clause (21) or clause (23), or by a fund or trust or institution referred to in sub clause (iv) or sub- clause (v) of clause (23C) of section 10. ITA Nos. 145/2001 & 180/2001 Page

INDIAN NATIONAL CONG. (I) AICC vs. C.I.T.- XI

charitable or religious purposes or by an institution established wholly or partly for such purposes or by an association or institution referred to in clause (21) or clause (23), or by a fund or trust or institution referred to in sub clause (iv) or sub- clause (v) of clause (23C) of section 10. 2016:DHC:2463-DB ITA Nos. 145/2001

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

Bench: Us.

charitable 65,442,711 Add : Amount spent for acquisition of fixed 59,245,036 ---------------- Total amount spent/applied during the year 124,687,747 Restricted to available surplus 102,644,155 ---------------- Taxable income NIL ==========” On the basis of the above working, it was claimed that the entire income was exempt under Section 11. In particular it was pointed out that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-25(1), NEW DELHI, DELHI vs. TECHNO TREXIM INDIA PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

245-246); J.K Charitable Trust\n(Pg. 248-253 para 8 at Pg. 250) Radhasoami Satsang (Pg. 254-261 para 14 at\nPg.260)ARJ Security Printers (Pg. 262-265 para 6 at Pg. 264)Neo Poly Pack P.\nLtd. (Pg. 266-267 para 5 at Pg. 267)Dalmia Promoters Developers (Pg. 268-275\npara

TECHNO TREXIM (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 25(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

245-246); J.K Charitable Trust\n(Pg. 248-253 para 8 at Pg. 250) Radhasoami Satsang (Pg. 254-261 para 14 at\nPg.260)ARJ Security Printers (Pg. 262-265 para 6 at Pg. 264)Neo Poly Pack P.\nLtd. (Pg. 266-267 para 5 at Pg. 267)Dalmia Promoters Developers (Pg. 268-275\npara

KAILASH GAHLOT,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as above

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.3431/Del./2023, A.Y. 2015-16 Kailash Gahlot Deputy Commissioner Of C-6/6172, Vasant Kunj, Income Tax, New Delhi Vs. Central Circle-4, Pan: Aajpg2849N New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Vinod Kumar Bindal, Ca Sh. Anmol Jha, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/10/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal Of The Assessee For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.09.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

charitable trust was created by the appellant and his family members. The trust is running a school named Shri Ram International School where Shri Rohit Sharma is apparently working. The address of the author on the diary is the address of the appellant. The mobile no. 9810032340 written on the first of the diary belongs to Shri Rohit Kailash Gahlot

` NIHARIKA EDUCATION SOCIETY,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the ground nos

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotraassessment Year : 2010-11 Niharika Education Society, Addl. Cit, Range-1, C/O Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate, Ghaziabad. Chamber No.206-07, Vs. Ansal “Satyam”, Rdc Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad. Pan : Aaatn 6147 P (Appellant) (Respondent)

245 ITR 492 (DEL) 14. UNION OF INDIA V SATISH PANALAL SHAH (2001) 249 ITR 221 (SC). 12. Ld. DR submitted that principles of res-judicata are not applicable to income tax proceedings and, therefore, the assessment order in the case of K. S. Memorial For Education and Research (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case